Changing Property Manager (Syndic): Procedure, Time Limits and Model Termination Letter

A co-ownership council (conseil syndical) that can no longer obtain answers, service charges that rise without explanation, minutes sent three months late: dissatisfaction with a property manager (syndic) is one of the most common situations in a co-ownership (copropriété). Many co-owners then think it is enough to send a termination letter, as for a telephone subscription. This is a mistake of method that wastes time and sometimes a whole year. This guide sets out the procedure for changing syndic, the applicable majorities and time limits, the real effect of a syndic termination letter, a model letter that can be used as it stands, and the pitfalls to avoid under the rules deriving from the ALUR Act.

The syndic's mandate is not a subscription that can be cancelled

The syndic performs its functions under a fixed-term contract voted at a general meeting. Its maximum term is three years, reduced to one year where the syndic, one of its employees, its spouse or a close relative has taken part, directly or indirectly, in the construction of the building (Article 28 of Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967).

Since the ALUR Act (Act No. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014) and Decree No. 2015-342 of 26 March 2015, the syndic contract has been a standard-form contract. It sets a flat fee for day-to-day management, the exhaustive list of special services that may be charged in addition, and the terms on which the mandate ends. This contract binds the co-owners' association (syndicat des copropriétaires), which is the body of co-owners endowed with legal personality, and the syndic, not each co-owner individually.

This distinction is decisive. A single co-owner cannot terminate the syndic's mandate. The decision always belongs to the general meeting, which alone has power to appoint and dismiss the syndic. The real question is therefore not "how to terminate" but "how to have the general meeting vote for a change of syndic".

Two routes exist:

• non-renewal on expiry, by appointing a new syndic for the following period;
• early termination of the current contract, which is more tightly regulated and reserved for specific situations.

Changing syndic on expiry: the normal route

Who can start the process

Three actors can set the change in motion. The co-ownership council, the body that assists and supervises the syndic, is best placed because it knows the failings and negotiates with candidates. A single co-owner can also do so, by asking for an item to be added to the agenda. Finally, the outgoing syndic itself generally puts the renewal of its mandate on the agenda, which opens the discussion. The eligibility, election and duties of this body are detailed in our article on the role of the co-ownership council.

Imagine a small co-ownership of twenty units where, for two years, the council has noted unanswered reminders and a provisional budget voted late. As the end of the mandate approaches, it prepares the competitive tender and has the appointment of a new syndic put on the agenda of the next meeting. This is the most common and the safest scenario.

The competitive tender required by the ALUR Act

The ALUR Act introduced an obligation to seek competing offers in Article 21 of Act No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965. Every three years, the co-ownership council puts several draft syndic contracts out to competition before the meeting called to decide on the appointment. In practical terms, several firms must be approached, and the flat fees, the list of special services and their prices, and the quality of the follow-up offered must be compared.

The general meeting may decide, by the Article 25 majority, to exempt the council from this tender. But the spirit of the text remains clear: comparing before renewing avoids automatic renewal and fee drift. Even without a constituted council, a co-owner may attach to his request for inclusion on the agenda one or more competing contracts so that the meeting has a real choice.

Inclusion on the agenda

A general meeting may vote only on questions on the agenda. Having a new syndic elected therefore requires that the appointment, with the corresponding contract, be placed on the agenda before the notice of meeting is sent.

Article 10 of the Decree of 17 March 1967 allows any co-owner to notify the syndic, at any time, of the questions he wishes to see placed on the agenda of the next meeting. The syndic is bound to include them. Notification is made by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or by electronic means where the co-owner has given his consent. The draft contract or contracts of the candidate syndics must be attached, failing which the vote on the appointment would be vulnerable.

Early termination of the current mandate

Waiting for expiry is not always possible, for example where the syndic no longer performs its obligations. The ELAN Act (Act No. 2018-1021 of 23 November 2018) and the standard-form contract regulate early termination.

Where the syndic seriously breaches its obligations (failure to convene the annual meeting, failure to keep the accounts, refusal to provide documents to the council), the council may request that termination of the contract be placed on the agenda of a meeting. The decision to terminate is taken by the Article 25 majority, as is the appointment of the replacement. It is prudent to vote at the same meeting on the termination of the old contract and the appointment of the new syndic, with a consistent effective date, to avoid any gap in management. The handling of requests to install charging points is among the syndic's obligations examined in our article on the syndic's liability for electric vehicle charging points (IRVE).

The standard-form contract provides for a notice period and for notification of the decision to the outgoing syndic. This is where the syndic termination letter truly takes shape: it does not come from a single co-owner but from the association, notified by the new syndic or the chair of the council, and it rests on a decision of the meeting duly adopted. A letter sent without a prior vote has no legal value.

The syndic may, for its part, resign, observing the contractual notice period. It must then convene a meeting to allow the appointment of its successor, so as not to leave the co-ownership without a legal representative.

The vote at the general meeting: which majority

The appointment of the syndic falls under the Article 25 majority of the 1965 Act, that is, an absolute majority of the votes of all the co-owners, whether present, represented or absent. The calculation is therefore based on all the ownership shares (tantièmes) of the co-ownership, not only those of the co-owners present. On the notice of meeting, the chairing of the meeting and all the majority rules, see our guide to the co-ownership general meeting.

This majority is sometimes hard to achieve in co-ownerships with high absenteeism. The law provides a bridging mechanism in Article 25-1: if the candidate does not obtain an absolute majority but receives at least one third of the votes of all the co-owners, the meeting may immediately hold a second vote by the simple majority of Article 24 (a majority of the votes of the co-owners present, represented or having voted by post). This mechanism allows a syndic to be appointed without convening a new meeting.

One point of vigilance: put two or three candidates in competition and submit each contract to a separate vote. The meeting then chooses in full knowledge of the facts, and the minutes must clearly state the syndic chosen, the length of the mandate and the effective date.

The time limits to respect: building a reverse schedule

Changing syndic follows a precise calendar that must be planned several months ahead.

• The notice of the general meeting is sent to the co-owners at least twenty-one days before the date of the meeting (Article 9 of the Decree of 17 March 1967), a period that may be lengthened by the co-ownership regulations.
• The request for inclusion on the agenda must reach the syndic early enough to appear in that notice, so in practice several weeks before the annual meeting.
• The tender for contracts requires approaching firms and receiving their proposals, which often takes one to two months depending on their responsiveness.
• The effective date of the new mandate is fixed by the resolution voted. It is advisable to make it coincide with the end of the current mandate to avoid any overlap or interruption.

In a co-ownership whose annual meeting is held each spring, a well-advised council starts the process in the autumn: collecting competing proposals at the end of the year, requesting inclusion on the agenda at the beginning of the year, voting in the spring, with effect from the expiry of the mandate.

The handover between the old and the new syndic

Once the new syndic has been appointed, the issue becomes the transfer of documents and funds. Article 18-2 of the Act of 10 July 1965 imposes a strict timetable on the outgoing syndic:

The former syndic shall transmit to the new syndic, within fifteen days of the end of its functions, the cash position, all the funds immediately available and all the documents and archives of the association.

Within the month following the expiry of this first period of fifteen days, the outgoing syndic transmits the statement of the co-owners' accounts and that of the association's accounts. Within the two months following that same period, it hands over all the necessary documents, in particular the details of the association's bank accounts and the bank's contact details.

In the event of delay, the new syndic, or the chair of the council after a formal notice (mise en demeure) that has remained unanswered for fifteen days, may apply to the president of the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) sitting in summary proceedings (référé) to obtain transmission under a daily penalty (astreinte). This route is effective against a former syndic who blocks the file.

The opening or takeover of the association's separate bank account deserves particular attention. Since the ALUR Act, a separate bank account in the name of the association is the rule. The new syndic must make sure it recovers the balance and has access, failing which the management of service charges is paralysed.

Model letter requesting inclusion on the agenda

The letter that is really useful is not a "termination letter" sent directly to the syndic, but the request for inclusion on the agenda of the appointment of a new syndic, based on Article 10 of the Decree of 17 March 1967. Here is a model to adapt.

Name, first name and address of the co-owner References of the unit or units concerned

Name and address of the syndic Registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt

Subject: request for inclusion of items on the agenda of the next general meeting

Dear Sir or Madam,

As a co-owner of the building located at (address), and pursuant to Article 10 of Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967, I request that you place the following items on the agenda of the next general meeting:

1. Presentation of the syndic contracts put out to competition, pursuant to Article 21 of the Act of 10 July 1965;
2. Appointment of a new syndic and approval of its contract, for a term of (specify), with effect from (date);
3. Where applicable, termination of the contract of the current syndic and setting of the date on which its functions end.

Please find enclosed the draft contract or contracts of the candidate syndics, so that the meeting can decide in full knowledge of the facts.

I would be grateful if you would confirm that this request has been taken into account.

Done at (place), on (date) Signature

This letter may also be sent by a member of the council or by its chair. Where the process aims at early termination for breaches, it is useful to document the failings precisely (unanswered reminders, late notices of meeting, failure to provide documents) in an annexed document, to inform the vote and anticipate any challenge.

Mistakes to avoid

The first mistake is to send an individual termination letter to the syndic in the belief of ending its mandate. It has no legal effect: only the general meeting decides. The syndic remains in office until a successor has been duly appointed.

The second mistake is to neglect the competitive tender. Renewing out of habit, without comparing fees and services, deprives the co-ownership of a means of saving money and weakens the process if a co-owner later challenges it.

The third mistake concerns the calendar. Requesting inclusion on the agenda after the notice of meeting has been sent dooms the project: the question cannot be voted on and it will be necessary to wait for the next meeting, that is, another year with the same syndic.

The fourth mistake is to leave a gap in management. Voting for the termination of the old syndic without immediately appointing its replacement exposes the co-ownership to a period without a legal representative, during which no expenditure can be validly incurred. The appointment of the new syndic and the end of the former one's functions must be aligned on consistent dates.

The fifth mistake is to underestimate the handover. Perfect minutes are of no use if the former syndic hands over neither the funds nor the archives. The time limits of Article 18-2 must be followed and, in the event of blockage, one should not hesitate to serve a formal notice and then apply to the judge in summary proceedings.

Conclusion

Changing syndic is not a termination formality; it is a co-ownership governance procedure that is won beforehand. The key is not the letter sent to the outgoing syndic, but preparation: a serious tender of the contracts, inclusion on the agenda in good time, a vote at the right majority and a precise alignment of the end and effective dates of the mandates. The ALUR Act gave co-owners the tools to regain control, provided that the calendar and the formalities are respected.

The practical advice: do not think in terms of "termination" but of "appointment". Start the tender at least three to four months before the annual meeting, have the appointment of the new syndic put on the agenda by registered letter, and secure the handover by watching the time limits of Article 18-2. In the event of serious breaches justifying early termination, obtain assistance to document the faults and draft unassailable resolutions, because a badly prepared vote may be annulled and prolong by as much the presence of the syndic in dispute.

Frequently asked questions

Can a single co-owner change the syndic? No. The appointment and dismissal of the syndic fall exclusively to the general meeting, which decides by the Article 25 majority of the Act of 10 July 1965. A single co-owner can, however, set the process in motion by requesting, by registered letter, that the appointment of a new syndic be placed on the agenda, on the basis of Article 10 of the Decree of 17 March 1967.

What majority is needed to appoint a new syndic? The Article 25 majority, that is, an absolute majority of the votes of all the co-owners, whether present, represented or absent. If the candidate does not reach this majority but receives at least one third of the votes of all the co-owners, the bridging mechanism of Article 25-1 allows an immediate second vote by the simple majority of Article 24.

Must one wait until the end of the mandate to change syndic? Not necessarily. On expiry, it is enough to appoint another syndic. During the mandate, early termination is possible in the event of breaches by the syndic of its obligations, voted at the meeting by the Article 25 majority, with a notice period and a notification provided for by the standard-form contract. It is preferable to vote at the same meeting on the end of the former syndic's functions and the appointment of the replacement.

What is the time limit for the former syndic to hand over the documents? Article 18-2 of the 1965 Act requires the cash position, the available funds and the archives to be handed over within fifteen days of the end of its functions, then the statement of accounts within the month following that period, and all remaining documents within the two months following that same period. In the event of delay, the judge in summary proceedings may order transmission under a daily penalty.

Is a tender for syndic contracts compulsory? The ALUR Act inserted in Article 21 of the 1965 Act a requirement for the co-ownership council to seek competing offers every three years, before the meeting called to appoint the syndic. The meeting may exempt the council by a vote at the Article 25 majority, but comparing offers remains strongly recommended in order to control fees.

Is a termination letter sent to the syndic enough to end its mandate? No. An individual letter has no legal effect on the mandate. The end of functions results either from the arrival of the term without renewal, or from an early termination duly voted at a general meeting. Notification to the outgoing syndic takes place only after this collective decision.

What happens if the co-ownership is left without a syndic? A gap in management paralyses the co-ownership, because no expenditure or act can be validly undertaken. To avoid this, the end date of the old mandate and the effective date of the new one must be aligned. In the absence of a syndic, any interested party may apply to the president of the judicial court to have a provisional administrator appointed.